No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Administrative errors are an overlooked cause of administrative burdens. Citizens face costs in the correction of an error and in the material and immaterial consequences of an error, such as loss of access to benefits or services. This problem is especially relevant given the characteristics of information technology in the public sector, which is increasingly used to share data among multiple organisations through master data management systems. We conceptualise administrative errors and their burdens through the analysis of an exemplary case of a Dutch woman's Kafkaesque problems because of a registration error by the police regarding her stolen car.

Certain influential innovation impact studies do not sharply distinguish standards from regulation. Is differentiation needed? In what way do they differ in how they work and work out? This article applies and extends a framework of regulatory modalities to open up the black box of direct innovation effects. It includes standards as a separate regulatory modality following careful consideration of alternatives, i.e., accommodating them as a special instance or as a hybrid of law, norm, market and architecture. The authors capture the essential differences between standards and law. They reconcile Lessig's emphasis on constraints with findings of enabling and constraining effects in innovation research by differentiating direct inherently constraining effects of regulatory modalities and modality-specific direct generic effects - as opposed to indirect effects. They conclude that standards and law merit separate treatment in innovation research, and recommend complementary frameworks to uncover unaddressed issues.